Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-17
THE FERRIS GILES sUIr.
[Oontins.sd from paqe paqe. j

=
worry quick on account of my back my
health Is not near 90 good now as II was
before the accident.
In cross- examination he said that on or
about the 18th Of March, 1885, he tried
to dance; he could waltz around the room
but once; he tried to dance four or Ave
different times, but never could waltz
around the room but once, as II tired him
out since last November he has taught q
class in dancing at Dover for six or eight
weeks and has gone through the steps In
instructing the pupils.
: In reply to Mr.. Bird he stated that the
dancing he did was as matter of busi.
ness.
DR.. James A. Draper testified that he
with DIR. Pyle went TO the house Of the
plaintiff on the afternoon Of the accident;
found nothing about the plaintiff that re-.
quired particular treatment except the
broken thigh; IL was the left thigh and
was broken between what we call the up.
per and middle third; it was an oblique
fracture, at the thickest part of the leg |;
II united very slowly was called
10 see him In the latter
part of April discovered that
the thigh was bowed out In front;
found that the fracture had been looRened;
this was practically arefracture; examined
the plaintiff two or three days ago; we
have no physical means of ascertaininR
what his injuries in the abdomen or back
are; there Ia nothing on the surface to
indicate what they are; one leg In fully
three-quarters of an inch shorter than the
other; it will never be any longer than 1t
Ia now.
DIR. Joseph P, Pyle testified that he
first saw the plaintiff at his home in the
parlor with temporary dressing on the
fractured thigh; he set the leg with the
assistance of DIR. Draper; for about three
weeks he visited the patient two and
three times day; after that he visited
him daily until he could get out Of
bed there was depression Of
physical condition during the hrst
three or four weeks owing to shock, he
considered tho condition very bad they
had l5'pound weight attached to the
leg TO prevent the muscles from pulling
the bone out of shape this weight was
varied; while the plaintiff was lying In
bed he complained of tenderness over the
abdomen and back, but il did not seem
Of any special import to the witness the
plaintiff came to witness twice after hav-
ing been at work at different times and
complained of pains in his back; day OF
so after the accident there was a passage
Of blood from the bladder Of the plain.
tiff; IL amounted to several drachms OF
about wine glass full there is no Other
injury except that to the leg that the wit.
ness could demonstrate; he had to accept
the patients word as to the internal
injuries.
In REORGANIZATION the doctor said
his own right leg Ind been broken twice
in different places; if those breaks cause
him any trouble or injury he cannot de
tect it.
Martha Giles, mother Of the plaintiff
testified that for three weeks after the
accident the plaintiff was very Tightly; h,
would nearly jump off the bed, and cry
Jump, boysl the building is coming,
after three weeks he got very low and hat
frequent fainting fits, two and three il
one day upon several days; the witness
made frequent applications Of linimen
and other lotions TO his back; his groan
often awakened her from sleep; the plain
tiff when at work before the accident con
tributed to the support of his mother ant
sisters; number Of his young friend
used TO come to the house and sit will
him during the night when he was in hi
Eighty and weak condition.
Ex United. States. Marshal Henry Nc
Mullen testified that he lived near tn
dent, and was frequently at the house
render assistance he corroborated pre-
vious witnesses as to the Eighty and wea
condition of the plaintiff and said it wa
thought at one time that he would die.
William Fl. Pierson, Jr., one Of th
young men who watched by the plaintiff
bedside, corroporated the above he test
fed that he and other friends took turn
in sitting up with the plaintiff for
month.
Mr.. Bid was about to call the 9th,
young men, when counsel for the defer
dant announced that they would adm
that they had sat up with him for thi
time, and their testimony was dispense
with.
William Mullen described the mann
OF the second fall, in April, 1886,
Ocheltree's store.
Court then took recess until Il
afternoon.
The superior court reassembled at
o'clock in the afternoon, and Villa
Gossam was called to the stand. He tes'
fed that he was at work ON the roof of u
building when it fell, and that 1t start
with A swinging motion. This witne
has suit pending against the DiamoI
State Iron Company for damages sustain'
In this same accident. The plaintiff
this point rested.
Mr.. Bradford of counsel for the d
PENDANT then. moved for nonsuit. Il
argument upon the motion occupied u
entire session and is not yet concluded.
the course of his discussion he said: III
case must be tried by the application
the principles Of law, and not by syn
patty. The case bears two-fold aspe6
One ia the Inv of master and servant, a.
the other is the law of negligence. ID
the plaintiff SO contributed to the &C,
dent in this case rs TO deprive him OF 7
right to recoverP In cases of master al
servant contributory negligenceis consi
cred. In the law of negligence t
relation Of master and servant is al
considered. Now what are t
facts II is nowhere charg
in the testimony that Mr.. Sim
son was not thoroughly CO
petent contractor. In all Simpson's CO
ferences with the members of this dete
dant company he says the idea of danG
did not enter into his mind. The sugg
ton for the additional four inches to
thiekness of the wall was merely ms
with the given reason that 1t would ms
a sitter wall and better looking j
The members of this defendant compa
are not builders, and no suggestion OF
idea of danger was made TO them, SO y
there was nothing to warn them otil
wise than this wall was perfectly safe
secure. Some things must be accep
as self-evident, even in an argument
nonsuit. One of these things IL .
il this company had conceived for
moment that this wall was dangero
they would not have put their money
it-whether they, as legal propositi
were bound to know, bound to have fc
cast Of the results, is not point 10
considered at this stage of the argume
But that they did not have the idea
danger present 10 their minds stands
fact unshaken. II there were any
fects in this wall they were not latent
fects they were patent, obvious and
pable. There were no defects In the !
terial. the bricks or the mortar.
whole testimony in the case "
to the point that the de-
in that building was due to one
both of two causes either the thinnes
the wall or the fact that one end OF ,f,
building was left open, or both. III
defects were SO patent that any
capable Of approaching them could
them even as a passer-by. Here we ?
the case of a bright, intelligent ma
full age, voluntarily accepting servic